If they gave reds access to Trammel

[THP]

my ANSWER is still NO!!!

Iam quite happy stealthing ALL throughout fellucca with my blueberry!!!

And i will say it again NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

 

[FrejaSP]

good point freja. I agree with you, and that's also what I was saying.

By entering the felucca facet, I am consenting to play in a ruleset that allows me to be attacked by other players. This is seperate from whether or not I consent to any fight with any of the specific individuals I see there.

In other words, by going to fel, I consent to the possibility of being attacked/killed non-consensually.

Yes, do you now also agree with me, what goes on in Felucca should not effect if you can go to Trammel or not?
The justice should be made in Felucca. If we remove the "can't go to Trammel zone" thing, we may need to replace that punisment with something else. Being red should not be easy, so you could limit how many items a red can insure, maybe around 6.
Also make it so the insurance money a red gain when killing a blue will go in his backpack instead of in the bank. If he is killing an orange, money goes to the bank.

What I meant about the 'there would be no reds' thing:
If someone is attacked non-consensually, they will give a murder count.
If someone was consenting to fighting with everyone/anyone who attacks them, they won't give a count.
If everyone in fel truly was giving consent to everyone/anyone in fel to attack/kill them, there would be no murder counts issued... there would be no murder.
If there was no murder, there would be no murderers, and thus no reds.

True, even on Siege, reds love getting counts, so given a count is a way to show respect to your killer. Not giving it is a way to show disrespect, he don't deserve the fame from having alot counts.
Most reds like their color, the only one who hate being red is the blue ones who can't count to 5.

What I meant about the orange thing:
If EA intended that when you enter fel, you're automatically giving consent to everyone to attack you... then they would have changed the rules to reflect that, making it so there was no red or blue in fel.. instead everyone would be orange to everyone else.

I understand that, but would be sad to see that happen, when it will remove the old UO spirit from Felucca.

 

[Radun]

This would be valid if the vast majority didn't already have blue characters. I'm not saying they do, but it's really not that difficult to create a character... even without Advanced Character Tokens.

It's still a valid point, even if everyone has blue characters.. I'm not saying it's a harsh punishment.
Creating a character in itself isn't difficult at all... if all you want to do is shop and sell at the bank. If you want to actually hunt peerless, go to doom, etc, you need to train up all the skills, acquire powerscrolls, and build a new suit. This would take at least a week of working your butt off for the skills, and many millions of gold for the powerscrolls and suit.
You may not think that's a lot, but contrast that with simply being able to use your built-up PvP red char which would take no extra effort at all.

Forcing the player to rely on another character, to be able to do anything in trammel is the punishment.. even if the person already has the seperate character before they went red. They still had to do all the extra work to make that character playable, and also have to keep that character blue to continue to be able to use it as their trammel character. Using a character to kill a bunch of other players non-consensually, is saying goodbye to being able to use that character in any environment where they can't be attacked by other players non-consensually.

 

[FrejaSP]

WHERE THE HELL IN THIS POST DOES IT SAY A BLUE AS TO ATTACK A RED FIRST BEFORE FIGHTING CAN/WILL COMMENCE???????????????????????

Black Rain want the reds to follow the Trammel ruleset in Trammel, so to fight, a red would have to be in guildwar or factions just like blue in Trammel.

I on the other hand want reds to be attackable, find my first post in this thread.

Noone wanted to remove the Trammel ruleset and make ir all Felucca, we have Siege for that.

And, no reason to yell, that only make you sound like a kid.

 

[FrejaSP]

my ANSWER is still NO!!!

Iam quite happy stealthing ALL throughout fellucca with my blueberry!!!

And i will say it again NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

I'm not, I want tracking unnerfed so we can kill you
It's spellet Felucca

 

[Yalp]

ok.. some reds want to be given something they didn't have before.... consequences removed for their behavior.

the question is.. what are reds willing to give up to get this?

 

[Yalp]

Forcing the player to rely on another character, to be able to do anything in trammel is the punishment.. even if the person already has the seperate character before they went red.

So my crafter should also be able to bring down dread horns?

 

[Radun]

um, no... that's not even close to what I said.
What I said had nothing to do with crafters.....

 

[Dicimiie]

It's still a valid point, even if everyone has blue characters.. I'm not saying it's a harsh punishment.
Creating a character in itself isn't difficult at all... if all you want to do is shop and sell at the bank. If you want to actually hunt peerless, go to doom, etc, you need to train up all the skills, acquire powerscrolls, and build a new suit. This would take at least a week of working your butt off for the skills, and many millions of gold for the powerscrolls and suit.
You may not think that's a lot, but contrast that with simply being able to use your built-up PvP red char which would take no extra effort at all.

Forcing the player to rely on another character, to be able to do anything in trammel is the punishment.. even if the person already has the seperate character before they went red.

Skill gaining isn't tough. Just have to be willing to put the time in. As far as hunting goes, you don't need powerscrolls or gear to do it well enough. Unless you're talking about soloing Peerless or Doom, I'd imagine that these would be necessary. But I was doing Doom runs with friends with no powerscrolls or nice gear. My mage had full LRC with maybe a FC/FCR of 1/1 and was doing just fine. In fact, I died far less than anyone else doing the runs. My Peerless experience was a bit different, but I still managed. Got some decent stuff too.

On top of that, there are quite a few templates out there that are great for PvP and lousy for PvM. At least that is what I've been told. So letting reds into Tram doesn't necessarily mean much hunting wise.

 

[Yalp]

well.. how is creating a red character any different than deciding to create a crafter? or a mage or a fisher? yes... you the player makes a conscious decision to make a red character.. you weren't born red.

I can't come to these boards and cry that I can't get my crafter into doom because I can't get the bones to get a skull.. and I want the devs to stop penalizing me for my play style. I can't come here and yell at everyone saying how it wouldn't affect them in any way shape or form if my crafter could go to Doom.

No. instead I'd go out there, make a toon capable of defeating the mobs that I need to get the bones so I can get a skull and then go to doom.

The same choice.. make a red or no, make a different character that compensates for my red template.. exist for every player in the game. Every choice along the way has consequences.

Maybe its being sad badly in this thread.. but the point remains.. there are consequences for being red.... which must be accepted.

 

[Floyd the Barber]

well.. how is creating a red character any different than deciding to create a crafter? or a mage or a fisher? yes... you the player makes a conscious decision to make a red character.. you weren't born red.

I can't come to these boards and cry that I can't get my crafter into doom because I can't get the bones to get a skull.. and I want the devs to stop penalizing me for my play style. I can't come here and yell at everyone saying how it wouldn't affect them in any way shape or form if my crafter could go to Doom.

No. instead I'd go out there, make a toon capable of defeating the mobs that I need to get the bones so I can get a skull and then go to doom.

The same choice.. make a red or no, make a different character that compensates for my red template.. exist for every player in the game. Every choice along the way has consequences.

Maybe its being sad badly in this thread.. but the point remains.. there are consequences for being red.... which must be accepted.

So, all of you RED haters out there that feel we need to suffer for our wrong doings, what is it that reds gain by being red? Murder counts is the only thing I can think of......

As far as consequences go let's see........I can't buy items off of any vendors. I have to find a red healer to be rezzed (no blue healers), I can get guard whacked, blue guildies can't rez me without turning grey (flagging them), and more I'm sure I'm not thinking of.....

So, what is it we get from being red again, unlike your crafter that can't go to Doom, I think we all know the advantages of having a crafter....

 

[Dicimiie]

well.. how is creating a red character any different than deciding to create a crafter? or a mage or a fisher? yes... you the player makes a conscious decision to make a red character.. you weren't born red.

I can't come to these boards and cry that I can't get my crafter into doom because I can't get the bones to get a skull.. and I want the devs to stop penalizing me for my play style. I can't come here and yell at everyone saying how it wouldn't affect them in any way shape or form if my crafter could go to Doom.

No. instead I'd go out there, make a toon capable of defeating the mobs that I need to get the bones so I can get a skull and then go to doom.

The same choice.. make a red or no, make a different character that compensates for my red template.. exist for every player in the game. Every choice along the way has consequences.

Maybe its being sad badly in this thread.. but the point remains.. there are consequences for being red.... which must be accepted.

The difference with the crafter going to Doom is that while it would be strange to even attempt such a thing, there is nothing in the game mechanics that says "you are a crafter and therefore are FORBIDDEN to go to Doom." It's still physically possible, though not probable.

The OP isn't asking for a new template, easier boss monsters, or better loot. He's asking for the game to be more open so he may do other things. I really still don't see an issue with this.

 

[Radun]

In other words... Logging out, and logging into a blue character to use trammel, isn't 'getting around' the consequences for being a murderer... it IS the consequences. at least part of it.

 

[Radun]

So, all of you RED haters out there that feel we need to suffer for our wrong doings, what is it that reds gain by being red? Murder counts is the only thing I can think of......

Powerscrolls, if you're in a raiding guild... it really depends on who you're murdering and what you're murdering them for. If you have no reason to murder, and you're just doing it for fun, then the only thing you gain from being red is the freedom to kill blues (since you're already red it doesn't matter if you get more counts), and the fun you experience from murdering.

 

[Floyd the Barber]

In other words... Logging out, and logging into a blue character to use trammel, isn't 'getting around' the consequences for being a murderer... it IS the consequences. at least part of it.

Good point!

However to the poster earlier, Reds aren't complaining about not being able to come to trammel they just think it would be fun and a neat idea, it's you the blue trammies that are complaining about the idea of us coming....

Moving on...

 

[o2bavr6]

RTLFC

The issue that I have trouble grasping is the punishment part. It seems to me that Reds were punished by EA introducing Tram to remove our ability to kill people at random. Isn't this punishment enough?

If reds were to be able to go to Tram and only be able to interact the same way blues do, meaning no PvP what so ever, it shouldnt matter to anyone.

I can relate to people not wanting reds to come to Tram and have the ability to kill the blue in Tram if the blue flags on the red, since reds are much more adept at baiting people into attacking them, as well as finding any loopholes in the system.

But as I said before I think the concept of penalizing reds is outdated with todays game. Also the way I see it, is why should we be penalized for a ruleset (Colors - Red/Grey/Blue) that was implemented 10 years ago for the type of playstyle we want to participate in.

Also what makes my palystyle wrong and your right? Just because you dont want to participate in PvP doesnt mean you are right and i am wrong. And it doesnt mean that your opinon is worth more than mine or vice versa.

 

[Yalp]

the op isn't just asking for the game to be more open to players.. he is asking for a complete change in the programming to remove consequences for certain actions.

that is equivalent to saying.. hey .. change the code so we can do Melissa 5 times with the same toon and get the 25k tix each time.

or hey.. change the honor virture quest so i can run the same toon through 7 times with the same character to get the robe.. or

hey.. change the bod system so I can get bods with my mage.

 

[Yalp]

RTLFC

The issue that I have trouble grasping is the punishment part. It seems to me that Reds were punished by EA introducing Tram to remove our ability to kill people at random. Isn't this punishment enough?

If reds were to be able to go to Tram and only be able to interact the same way blues do, meaning no PvP what so ever, it shouldnt matter to anyone.

I can relate to people not wanting reds to come to Tram and have the ability to kill the blue in Tram if the blue flags on the red, since reds are much more adept at baiting people into attacking them, as well as finding any loopholes in the system.

But as I said before I think the concept of penalizing reds is outdated with todays game. Also the way I see it, is why should we be penalized for a ruleset (Colors - Red/Grey/Blue) that was implemented 10 years ago for the type of playstyle they want to participate in.

maybe the best thing to do is to make all pvp consensual.. thereby removing what some see as "negative punishment" for pvp'rs that killed players w/o their consent, then all players can feel free to go everywhere

 

[Dicimiie]

In other words... Logging out, and logging into a blue character to use trammel, isn't 'getting around' the consequences for being a murderer... it IS the consequences. at least part of it.

And my contention is that this is a very outdated, incidental and unnecessary consequence.

 

[Radun]

Good point!

However to the poster earlier, Reds aren't complaining about not being able to come to trammel they just think it would be fun and a neat idea, it's you the blue trammies that are complaining about the idea of us coming....

Moving on...

No no no... It's me the red pk (not blue trammy), explaining (not complaining) why it's fair that I have to change characters to go to luna/peerless/doom/shopping/socializing/etc in safety.

 

[Dicimiie]

Good point!

However to the poster earlier, Reds aren't complaining about not being able to come to trammel they just think it would be fun and a neat idea, it's you the blue trammies that are complaining about the idea of us coming....

Moving on...

Don't forget that some of us blue Trammies (I'm one) are in agreement that reds should be allowed to come to Trammel, Malas, Ilshenar and Tokuno.

 

[Radun]

And my contention is that this is a very outdated, incidental and unnecessary consequence.

As long as non-consensual pvp is alive and well in felucca, it's not outdated or unnecessary.

 

[Dicimiie]

As long as non-consensual pvp is alive and well in felucca, it's not outdated or unnecessary.

Then I guess we'll continue to disagree. I believe your idea of non-consentual PvP differs from my own.

If, for example, they were to put a gump up when you hit a moongate going to Felucca that said something along the lines of "Once you enter Felucca, you are consenting to PvP," that would make it consentual, correct?

 

[o2bavr6]

RTLFC

What if they made it to where PvP was allowed in all the high end dungeons but no where else.

Is it unreasonable to say that if a character is strong enough to go to a dungeon he is strong enough to PvP?

I just wish everyone could experience the thrill of PvP when 2 reds run in a dungeon with 10 blues in it and they all recalled out instead of fighting them.

Like 2 reds could kill 10 blues

On a side not, how dumb is it that a red cant get the Imp scroll for spellweaving because it can only be done in Tram?

I donno what the answer is, but I do know that a lot of people are missing out on a very important part of UO and the community it had.

Think of it along the lines of a lynch mob going after the murderer.

Player 1 dies to 5 reds. Player 1 goes to Luna bank and says "people i was just ganked by 5 reds, come help me kill them". Player 1 and 20 blues go to location where reds are and kill them

 

[Radun]

RTLFC

The issue that I have trouble grasping is the punishment part. It seems to me that Reds were punished by EA introducing Tram to remove our ability to kill people at random. Isn't this punishment enough?

No. That's not even a punishment

If reds were to be able to go to Tram and only be able to interact the same way blues do, meaning no PvP what so ever, it shouldnt matter to anyone.

Except to the people being PKed for their powerscrolls, peerless loot, crafting resources, or whatever else they venture into fel and get PKed for.

But as I said before I think the concept of penalizing reds is outdated with todays game. Also the way I see it, is why should we be penalized for a ruleset (Colors - Red/Grey/Blue) that was implemented 10 years ago for the type of playstyle we want to participate in.

It's not outdated because that 10 year old ruleset is still in effect. It doesn't matter that it was made 10 years ago.

Also what makes my palystyle wrong and your right? Just because you dont want to participate in PvP doesnt mean you are right and i am wrong. And it doesnt mean that your opinon is worth more than mine or vice versa.

I don't think anyone's saying your playstyle is wrong... However, the consequences are part of the playstyle.

 

[Ash]

RTLFC

The issue that I have trouble grasping is the punishment part. It seems to me that Reds were punished by EA introducing Tram to remove our ability to kill people at random. Isn't this punishment enough?

But as I said before I think the concept of penalizing reds is outdated with todays game. Also the way I see it, is why should we be penalized for a ruleset (Colors - Red/Grey/Blue) that was implemented 10 years ago for the type of playstyle we want to participate in.

The point is Reds still are able to kill people at random that go to Fel for reasons other than PvP, and therefor the punishment is not outdated. If incentives for going to Fel were removed then and only then would there be no murderers and thus no need for this penalty. For then PvP would be truly consensual and not the strong picking off the weak, but for some reason reds want to keep fighting people that aren't into PvP.

The point some of us are trying to make is if the consequence for being a murder is lifted the ability to murder needs to be changed. But while there are items available only in Fel then there will be blues baited into PvP that they don't really want to be involved in. Why should they be made to suffer the anguish of being murdered?

 

[Radun]

Then I guess we'll continue to disagree. I believe your idea of non-consentual PvP differs from my own.

If, for example, they were to put a gump up when you hit a moongate going to Felucca that said something along the lines of "Once you enter Felucca, you are consenting to PvP," that would make it consentual, correct?

Only if once you entered felucca everyone was orange to everyone else.

Flagging Grey, or turning Red, is automatically consenting to PvP with anyone and everyone who may attack you. Joining factions or guild war are examples of consensual pvp.
The way I see it, anything that ends with a murder count being issued, is non-consensual pvp.

 

[Dicimiie]

Only if once you entered felucca everyone was orange to everyone else.

We're going to wind up going in circles on this debate, so I'm going to bow out of it here.

I still believe that what I've said here holds true, and that reds should be allowed in the Trammelized lands, with the stipulation that they may not attack or steal from another player.

I also liked the idea of factions, giving Trammel the ability to get powerscrolls in Ilshenar assuming blue faction control.

 

[Ash]

Is it unreasonable to say that if a character is strong enough to go to a dungeon he is strong enough to PvP?

Yes. At the very least there maybe a different armor and equipment to use for PvP vs PvM, but mainly there is different tactics that those that PvM only will not know or even care to learn.

I was lucky enough to find a red (well he found me) that gave me and the guildmate I was with some pointers and we fought 1 on 1, he would kill one of us then the other, after which give us pointers. PvP is nothing like PvM and not everyone will be fortunate enough to have someone take the time to teach them.

I just wish everyone could experience the thrill of PvP when 2 reds run in a dungeon with 10 blues in it and they all recalled out instead of fighting them.

And now we see what it is to PvP through your eyes, not the victory of a worthwhile opponent but the chasing and killing of the helpless.

On a side not, how dumb is it that a red cant get the Imp scroll for spellweaving because it can only be done in Tram?

Not dumb at all since this addressed quite a while ago when arcane demons were placed in the Palace of Paroxymous.

 

[Yalp]

If, for example, they were to put a gump up when you hit a moongate going to Felucca that said something along the lines of "Once you enter Felucca, you are consenting to PvP," that would make it consentual, correct?

No. this would not be a valid definition of consensual pvp. This is only a validation that the player knows the ruleset is different.

 

[Draxous]

the op isn't just asking for the game to be more open to players.. he is asking for a complete change in the programming to remove consequences for certain actions.

Wrong.

I'm asking the game to be more open to players.

There are tons of consequences for murdering other players (unable to use the virtues or the benefits they offer) unable to be healed/res'd in town because of flagging, difficulty being resurrected, so on and so forth.


You really are pointless to debate with as you just make things up as you go, just like Redum, Ash and Surgies.

Seems like more and more like the idea tho! Oh noes!!!

 

[Draxous]

Only if once you entered felucca everyone was orange to everyone else.

We're going to wind up going in circles on this debate, so I'm going to bow out of it here.

We have been going in circles.

I've appreciated all of the bumps and the overwhelming support I've received from many players regarding this proposal.

Yalp, Radum, and Ash don't make sense, it's obvious as hell and we won't stop until this issue is addressed and they won't stop until they make enough personal attacks or goad one of us into getting this thread locked because they know how reasonable and sound this suggestion is and they are scared that players not of their playstyle will actually get some of the attention they deserve.


I enjoy all the crying about how good of an idea this really is. I'm enjoying reading the absolutely stupid reasons people think reds should suffer consequences for because they consensually PvP in the only place Ultima Online offers them the ability to.


Remove Trammel and then we can talk about the consequences reds deserve for murdering innocent players trying to enjoy the game. If we keep trammel then stop punishing players who enjoy consensual PvP and allow them access to the events, landmass and expansions they pay for.


*tips hat*

 

[Dicimiie]

Yalp, Radum, and Ash don't make sense, it's obvious as hell and we won't stop until this issue is addressed and they won't stop until they make enough personal attacks or goad one of us into getting this thread locked because they know how reasonable and sound this suggestion is and they are scared that players not of their playstyle will actually get some of the attention they deserve.

Well... it takes an awful lot to goad me into saying anything that could possibly get the thread locked. I personally find it much easier to be pragmatic and not volatile. This way, there doesn't have to be the wasted post of "So... your logic is flawed, so you decide to use personal attacks to make me listen" that always crops up.

My way just seems faster.

Oh... and I do like your ideas. I'm all for it. Put me down for 1 vote "Yes."

 

[Radun]

Stop assuming I'm arguing against other's playstyle. My main is a red, I'm in a raiding guild, I play in fel, I PvP.
Anything that ends with a murder count is non-consensual pvp. PKing is non-consensual pvp. raiding is non-consensual pvp. Just because YOU say it's consensual doesn't change the fact that you got a murder count (indicating that THE VICTIM didn't consider it consensual).

In order for what goes on in fel to be considered consensual-only, everyone would be orange except guild/allies. This is not how it works.

As long as non-consensual PvP is allowed, murderers will be restricted to fel.

Just give up on changing the game mechanics and make a blue already.

 

[It Lives]

Lets Re-implement statloss only its 40% this time round

 

[Draxous]

Lets Re-implement statloss only its 40% this time round

As soon as they remove the Trammel ruleset.

 

[Maplestone]

Noone wanted to remove the Trammel ruleset and make ir all Felucca, we have Siege for that.

um ... it actually has come up several times in this thread as a wish in one form or another. I mean seriously ... if all Black Rain really wanted was to play in just to go to Tram, he already has lots of options to do it.

 

[Draxous]

Stop assuming I'm arguing against other's playstyle. My main is a red, I'm in a raiding guild, I play in fel, I PvP.
Anything that ends with a murder count is non-consensual pvp. PKing is non-consensual pvp. raiding is non-consensual pvp. Just because YOU say it's consensual doesn't change the fact that you got a murder count (indicating that THE VICTIM didn't consider it consensual).

I don't believe you and neither do a lot of people.

In order for what goes on in fel to be considered consensual-only, everyone would be orange except guild/allies. This is not how it works.

This would only be true for the kind of system that doesn't have "Trammel" in it. When you are given the option to go to an area that has PvP enabled and an area that doesnt... then going to the area that does, means you are consenting to have PvP a part of your gaming experience.

Just give up on changing the game mechanics and make a blue already.

I don't have a single red character... go figure. I would be considered even worse than a red, because I kill reds, greys, oranges and if you're especially lucky even blues.

I love how people in this thread assume being blue means you're "innocent" (like you can't be a criminal in disguise) and how being red means your automatically a murdering scum bag (some players who are red, are red for RP purposes and actually couldn't kill a mongbat... Freja being one of them.)

You and your buddies stereotypes and connotations of a player-class are baseless, wrong, illogical, definitely naive and lastly ridiculous.

Changing the code (which is a simple thing to do!) to allow reds access to Trammel without changing any rules about either facet... would do nothing to anyone who wasn't red and it would benefit those who are.

Not to mention that it would mean this community is no longer split in 2 and divided.

An all around positive thing and no one, not a single one of you have made an argument against this very, very valid point.

Now continue complaining about how the game should punish people for enjoying a playstyle that has been restricted into a consensual PvP system.

*tips hat*

 

[Draxous]

Noone wanted to remove the Trammel ruleset and make ir all Felucca, we have Siege for that.

um ... it actually has come up several times in this thread as a wish in one form or another. I mean seriously ... if all Black Rain really wanted was to play in just to go to Tram, he already has lots of options to do it.

Um... it has not.

My entire proposal is allowing reds access into Trammel and not changing the rulesets of any facet or even changing anything else about this game.

This wouldn't change a single thing for those who don't care for the Felucca playstyle, but it would benefit those who do enjoy it and would like to go to Trammel on the characters of their choosing.

All I've been reading throughout this whole thread is a bunch of jealous people crying over someone other than them, getting something positive given to them.

GG

 

[Omnius]

the real issue is that trammelite players who have these absurd notions about pvp are up in arms that people can enjoy the same system they do as well as the end game. Most pvpers don't have one red, to have just one is a mark of shame or a sign of being new and not prepared for multiple situations.

It's not uncommon to have up to 3 different red mages and up to 3 different dexxers or 2 and an archer.

The majority of my chars are red, for the purpose of adapting to different situations as the situations require different templates. I'd be decried a newb if i brought a parry mage to a champ spawn or if i brought a pure dexxer to work a spawn. If i wasn't red on every caster I have I would be incapable of killing all of the opponents I face. My fields wouldn't mean anything nor would my area effect spells.

I can't just switch characters and play in trammel. If i switch characters to head to trammel, I'm getting on my tamer. Plain and simple. It's my only choice.

 

[Maplestone]

My entire proposal is allowing reds access into Trammel and not changing the rulesets of any facet or even changing anything else about this game.

Oh for crying out loud Black RaiN, you didn't even make it past your first post without suggesting changing the ruleset:

If TB or CoM owned all the towns then powerscrolls could be got from Ilshenar, with Tram facet rules.

If Minax or SL owned all the towns then powerscrolls could be got from Ilshenar, with Felucca facet rules.

If neither owned, then Ilsh is as it is.

 

[Lady_Mina]

Sorry to burst your bubbles.

But i don't see this 'plan of allowing red in trammel' happening soon....more like NEVER.

Sure we can fantasize about it...but i don't see this plan ever becomming reality.

So there's no real use of argueing about it , since it will never become real...


Devs have kept reds in fell for nearly 11 years now...i doubt they'll change their mind.
+ they already have problems coding plants to be cross pollinatable.

 

[It Lives]

As soon as they remove the Trammel ruleset.

No really 40% statloss for coming to tram...red, But immediately your char becomes all fluffy with big ears and **** and its perma stat loss with a big blue sign that says wannabie tramie floating over your char. All other rule set stays the same. No Reds In tram ever.

 

[Yalp]

You've been offered options. You've been offered logic. You've been offered compromise.. but your responses are less than worthy.

PLAYERS are not banned from Tramworld... SOME toons are. Why that fact is so hard to grasp is amazing.

If reds want to go to tramworld, then make all pvp consensual, make us all one color and be done with it. But I suspect, you'd rather hide in your house, jump the first crafter that comes by and talk like an idiot about how bada$$ you are.

You want it both ways.. hanging onto your red status and not being responsible for the consequences of it.. Sorry kids.. life is tough.. you gotta make choices and you gotta live with the consequences of those choices..

no amount of screaming, kicking, holding your breath, throwing things or insulting peeps on these boards is gonna change the hard cold facts of life.

 

[Yalp]

the real issue is that trammelite players who have these absurd notions about pvp are up in arms that people can enjoy the same system they do as well as the end game. Most pvpers don't have one red, to have just one is a mark of shame or a sign of being new and not prepared for multiple situations.

It's not uncommon to have up to 3 different red mages and up to 3 different dexxers or 2 and an archer.

The majority of my chars are red, for the purpose of adapting to different situations as the situations require different templates. I'd be decried a newb if i brought a parry mage to a champ spawn or if i brought a pure dexxer to work a spawn. If i wasn't red on every caster I have I would be incapable of killing all of the opponents I face. My fields wouldn't mean anything nor would my area effect spells.

I can't just switch characters and play in trammel. If i switch characters to head to trammel, I'm getting on my tamer. Plain and simple. It's my only choice.

One of the things that truly makes me shake my head in puzzlement.. you so freely and righteously insult trammel....

Getting on your tamer isn't the ONLY choice you have.. you could choose to have more than 1 blue character.. but you've chosen to have many reds..

 

[Yalp]

I love how people in this thread assume being blue means you're "innocent" (like you can't be a criminal in disguise)

This may be a valid issue and in need of discussion on how blues who murder people are able to avoid becoming red.. is it an exploit? is it something the pvp community wants to modify? A valid topic for discussion.. but it is a side note to this topic.

 

[Draxous]

You've been offered options. You've been offered logic. You've been offered compromise.. but your responses are less than worthy.

lol! A compromise for what? Nothing is being taken away from you... so why do you think, you deserve any kind of compensation for anything? - Logic

And you think your responses have been stellar or even thought-provoking?

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaahaha

Lets get real. You haven't made any kind of suggestion here that helps this game and the only suggestions you've mustered up have been to benefit your playstyle, while taking away from another. And you consider that a worthy argument?

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhahahah

You want it both ways.. hanging onto your red status and not being responsible for the consequences of it.. Sorry kids.. life is tough.. you gotta make choices and you gotta live with the consequences of those choices..

I want it both ways?

Do you really think the Devs, came to the table with the intentions of making a consequence to murder... having to make another character just to enjoy the expansions they've put into this game? I hardly think so.

The system is designed around the game as it was 8+ years ago and not the way the game is today. The Devs didn't have 7/9ths of the landmass, the majority of events, or new dungeons from expansions all in the Trammel ruleset 8 years ago. It was either or.

So sorry, but you're a nobody and your personal opinion of what the Dev team will or won't do means squat diddly doo doo.

If this proposal comes off as benefiting a playerbase without hurting or affecting other playerbases... I fail to see why they wouldn't consider it or even implement it, especially with players backing it. Oh guess what!!! That's exactly what's happening and it will only be a matter of time.

Thanks sir! I really appreciated the attention you've given to my idea. Free advertising is a great thing!

Have a great night!

 

[Draxous]

One of the things that truly makes me shake my head in puzzlement.. you so freely and righteously insult trammel....

Getting on your tamer isn't the ONLY choice you have.. you could choose to have more than 1 blue character.. but you've chosen to have many reds..

What you can't seem to understand is having more choices for players as long as they don't affect you is a good thing.

What I'm puzzled about, is why you're so bent out of shape over something that won't affect you in the slightest.

Oh, wait... it's obvious your only purpose is to try and make sure you're player-type is the only one that matters. Here's news: you're not.

 

[Yalp]

Not to mention that it would mean this community is no longer split in 2 and divided.

An all around positive thing and no one, not a single one of you have made an argument against this very, very valid point.

Now continue complaining about how the game should punish people for enjoying a playstyle that has been restricted into a consensual PvP system.

*tips hat*

first.. EA has set up the game to be a split community.. a side that enjoys pvp and an side that doesn't. reasons why each enjoys that playstyle are immaterial to the discussion. they just do. Any player could play either side if they so choose.

second.. we'll have to come to a gentlemen's agreement that we do no agree on what is consensual pvp. Entering a fel moongate for (dare I say) the majority of people is not consenting to being attacked and killed. You believe it is. EA currently does not agree with you, hence the murder system.

 

[Yalp]

What you can't seem to understand is having more choices for players as long as they don't affect you is a good thing.

What I'm puzzled about, is why you're so bent out of shape over something that won't affect you in the slightest.

Oh, wait... it's obvious your only purpose is to try and make sure you're player-type is the only one that matters. Here's news: you're not.

right now.. in this moment of the game.. every single one of us has the exact same choices.. no more .. no less than each other.. the only difference is what we have done with those choices.

and ps.. and a million gold check to you if you can manage 1 post without personally insulting me.